Is not picking up Marquis Team Option but trying to sign him as a UFA for cheaper an option?

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Is not picking up Marquis Team Option but trying to sign him as a UFA for cheaper an option?

Going through the 2009-2010 Draft thread....I was thinking that IF Brandon Jennings was the best Player available to draft and we decide to do draft him ( specifically a PG )......instead of resigning Jack....I was pondering whether it would be possible to not pick up Marquis Team Option ( at $7+ mil ) and then try to turn around and resign him at a cheaper rate....probably at the same rate that we would have likely tried to resign Jack at.....like $3.5-4 mil a year type deal.

I'm pretty sure that Marquis would likely get some suitors out there for his services....but looking at the way that he has played....I ( and probably many others here on PD ) would like to keep him.....we just don't ( nor can afford ) to keep him at his current Team Option price tag. I know that Jack has been clutch and even carried the Teams at times.....but is also kind turnover prone at time and if Jennings is the best player available and other players that could likely help us are off the board.....I could see drafting a PG ( to fill Jack's current role ) and then trying to resign Marquis ( at a cheaper price ) as a decent alternative.

In the past, has a Team decided not to pick up a Team Option on a Player then turned around and negotiated a new Contract with him?

I'm guessing that Marquis could turn around and choose not to go with the Pacers based off of some "You want me, but not at a higher cost" mentality....but if he can be had for a cheaper price, I would hope that he would consider staying.

Of course, my preferable option is to try to move Ford in the offseason for some rotational PF with a comprable contract ( which is highly unlikely ).....then try to resign both Jack ( to start ) and Marquis ( at a lower cost ) while drafting Jennings ( to fill the backup PG spot ).....but I doubt that happens.

Re: Is not picking up Marquis Team Option but trying to sign him as a UFA for cheaper an option?

I suspect this is the FO strategy, but it really all depends on what kind of offers Daniels gets. I don't think we can afford to sign either Jack or Daniels for more than $4mm next year, so if he gets an offer much above that, then we're probably out.

Re: Is not picking up Marquis Team Option but trying to sign him as a UFA for cheaper an option?

I suspect this is the FO strategy, but it really all depends on what kind of offers Daniels gets. I don't think we can afford to sign either Jack or Daniels for more than $4mm next year, so if he gets an offer much above that, then we're probably out.

That's what I'm thinking.....if either ( but not both ) could be had for $4 mil a year ( preferable for 2 years but IMHO acceptable for 3 years ), I would be willing to try to resign either of them.

IF the Pacers wanted to improve their PG rotation, I think that the best case scenario would be my "Trade Ford for a Frontcourt Player, resign Jack and Marquis then draft Jennings" scenario. Simply based off of what I have read about Jennings, I am certainly more comfortable with Jack/Jennings/Diener handling the PG minutes ( with a Granger/Marquis/Dunleavy/BRush at the SG/SF rotation ) then to continue a Ford/Jack/Diener PG rotation ( with Jack continuing to get more then enough SG minutes that I am not comfortable with ).

Re: Is not picking up Marquis Team Option but trying to sign him as a UFA for cheaper an option?

IF we can get Jennings and can't move Ford, assuming that Marquis would resign at a lower cost, I wouldn't be too adverse to choosing to resign him ( instead of Jack ) at a ~$4 mil a year contract for 3 seasons.

Although there is the very strong possibility that JO'B ( assuming that he's still our Coach in the 2009-2010 season...which is likely ) will continue to go SmallBall and have Ford and Jennings at the PG/SG rotation for far more minutes then I am comfortable with ....I would suspect that JO'B would go with Experience ( specifically playing Marquis or BRush at the SG spot with the PG ) then to continue running extensive minutes with a 2 headed PG/Ball Handler PG/SG rotation.

The main reason I bring this topic up is because I am not a very strong fan of JO'Bs preference to go with an experienced Small Ball lineup with the Thunder/Lightning Combo for extended periods of time. Although I suspect that part of the reason is due to lack of choice ( since Granger and Dunleavy are out and Marquis has been in/out of the lineup ), my reasoning is that the best way to minimize the use of Small Ball by JO'B is to simply limit his options to implementing such a lineup.

Before many of you jump to the conclusion that I don't want to resign Jack, I do think that he is a solid Combo PG/SG and wouldn't mind resigning him....since I think that JO'B would continue to use the Thunder/Lightning combo for extended periods of time...I just would prefer not do so IF JO'B is still our Coach.

Re: Is not picking up Marquis Team Option but trying to sign him as a UFA for cheaper an option?

I think someone else will sign him at more than we can afford. He's a good player but, I think we can do better. I really expect the contracts that are expiring, nearly 20M will be gone except for Graham and McBob. We will sign our draft picks (3) and not much more.

"He wanted to get to that money time. Time when the hardware was on the table. That's when Roger was going to show up. So all we needed to do was stay close"Darnell Hillman (Speaking of former teammate Roger Brown)

Re: Is not picking up Marquis Team Option but trying to sign him as a UFA for cheaper an option?

I think someone else will sign him at more than we can afford. He's a good player but, I think we can do better. I really expect the contracts that are expiring, nearly 20M will be gone except for Graham and McBob. We will sign our draft picks (3) and not much more.

Do the Pacers have two second round picks this year? Their own and the one from Dallas?

As Count has tirelessly pointed out, there really doesn't seem to be a workable solution for retaining Daniels, unless there is literally no market interest in him whatsoever. Then maybe something could get worked out. The only other hope would be that Dunleavy's situation quickly resolves itself via medical retirement (with his salary coming off the books) by July 1. Probably not likely either.

I also agree with the idea that the Pacers will be more interested in resigning Jack than Daniels anyway. All things being equal, you need look no further than injury history to decide which is the more palatable risk.

Re: Is not picking up Marquis Team Option but trying to sign him as a UFA for cheaper an option?

Do the Pacers have two second round picks this year? Their own and the one from Dallas?

As Count has tirelessly pointed out, there really doesn't seem to be a workable solution for retaining Daniels, unless there is literally no market interest in him whatsoever. Then maybe something could get worked out. The only other hope would be that Dunleavy's situation quickly resolves itself via medical retirement (with his salary coming off the books) by July 1. Probably not likely either.

I also agree with the idea that the Pacers will be more interested in resigning Jack than Daniels anyway. All things being equal, you need look no further than injury history to decide which is the more palatable risk.

I thought we had 3 second round picks this year? Our own and then two from dallas. Please correct me if i'm wrong though.

Re: Is not picking up Marquis Team Option but trying to sign him as a UFA for cheaper an option?

As count55 suggested ( which I agree with ), I think that we can afford to sign a Guard ( whether it be Jack or Marquis ) for some $4 mil a year / $12 mil over 3 seasons contract. If a Team was willing to give him more then $4 mil a year....that I would be more then happy to let Marquis go. I just don't think that a Team would be willing to pay him more than the $4mil a year that we could afford to pay given today's Financial and SalaryCap Concerned environment.

I really expect the contracts that are expiring, nearly 20M will be gone except for Graham and McBob. We will sign our draft picks (3) and not much more.

We still would likely resign a Guard in the 2009-2010 Offseason. Although the logical choice would be to resign Jack, assuming that Jennings is available, I'm suggesting that resigning Jack is not the only option IF we don't pick up Marquis' Team option while was willing to accept a $4 mil a year / $12 mil contract over 3 season contract. In this scenario.....we let Marquis' current contract expire while choosing to resign him to a more reasonable contract. I really like Marquis as a rotational SG/SF and think that his skillset fits what we are trying to do....I just don't think that he's worth the $7mil Team Option that he is owed.

Re: Is not picking up Marquis Team Option but trying to sign him as a UFA for cheaper an option?

As Count has tirelessly pointed out, there really doesn't seem to be a workable solution for retaining Daniels, unless there is literally no market interest in him whatsoever. Then maybe something could get worked out. The only other hope would be that Dunleavy's situation quickly resolves itself via medical retirement (with his salary coming off the books) by July 1. Probably not likely either.

I also agree with the idea that the Pacers will be more interested in resigning Jack than Daniels anyway. All things being equal, you need look no further than injury history to decide which is the more palatable risk.

I'm not sure if you're misreading the intention of my post.....but I'm not suggesting that we pick up Marquis' Team option ( which I agree we can't afford ), I'm suggesting that IF we draft Jennings ( a PG ).....that instead of choosing to resign Jack ( our current backup PG )......we choose to not pick up Marquis Team Option ( essentially letting him expire ) but try to resign Marquis as a UFA under a cheaper ( more reasonable ) contract ( of course assuming that he's willing to stay with us ).

I was never under the illusion that we would try to resign Jack while picking up Marquis Team Option.....I was just suggesting another option to solving our PG situation if the draft doesn't work out the way that we hope ( as in getting an NBA-Ready Athletic Frontcourt player ).

Retaining Marquis is IMHO possible.....if we don't pick up his Team Option and he is willing to accept a long-term but smaller contract.

Dallas' own 2010 2nd round pick to Indiana, provided, however, that Dallas shall have the option to defer this pick until 2011 at which time Dallas would then send it's own 2011 2nd round pick to Indiana [Dallas - Indiana, 10/10/2008]

Re: Is not picking up Marquis Team Option but trying to sign him as a UFA for cheaper an option?

My problem with not keep Quis is this - who the heck else are they going to pay to play? I know their financials are in a tight spot, but they also need competent ball players on the court. I mean if they are justifying keeping Dun and Troy I think it would be smart to at least keep a fair paid guy like Quis.

The only reason Quis doesn't get paid in the $6m range IMO is if teams are jittery about the injury situation. Otherwise he's played much better than what I would expect from a $4m vet.

Re: Is not picking up Marquis Team Option but trying to sign him as a UFA for cheaper an option?

Marquis has been having a great year for this team.

However I think that it is impossible to re-sign him though.

We do have Mike Dunleavy. I don't know his injury situation but hopefully it is something he can come back from next year. That is something for Bird and co to decide.

Besides Dunleavy there is still Brandon Rush. He is not proven but I think he has what it takes to be one heck of a player. Bird drafted him high and I think you gotta show some faith in Brandon by not re-signing Marquis. Having confidence in Brandon that he is ready for a bigger and more consistant role.

Then you have to consider it from a financial standpoint. This team is going to be bad with or without Marquis. So the question becomes is he in the long term plans of this team? I don't know that he is.

Another thing to think about from a financial standpoint is the fact that this team has a shot at cleaning up the salary situation. Re-signing Marquis would hurt that.

I think that there will be a lot of interest in Marquis from the top teams in the league. New Orleans, San Antonio, Orlando, Cleveland, probably others too. It would kinda suck to see Marquis go but you have to keep the big picture in mind.

Re: Is not picking up Marquis Team Option but trying to sign him as a UFA for cheaper an option?

I'm not sure if you're misreading the intention of my post.....but I'm not suggesting that we pick up Marquis' Team option ( which I agree we can't afford ), I'm suggesting that IF we draft Jennings ( a PG ).....that instead of choosing to resign Jack ( our current backup PG )......we choose to not pick up Marquis Team Option ( essentially letting him expire ) but try to resign Marquis as a UFA under a cheaper ( more reasonable ) contract ( of course assuming that he's willing to stay with us ).

I was never under the illusion that we would try to resign Jack while picking up Marquis Team Option.....I was just suggesting another option to solving our PG situation if the draft doesn't work out the way that we hope ( as in getting an NBA-Ready Athletic Frontcourt player ).

Retaining Marquis is IMHO possible.....if we don't pick up his Team Option and he is willing to accept a long-term but smaller contract.

I think I understand the intent of your post, as I've been considering the same thing. What are the alternatives for keeping Daniels absent of picking up his option, which we know is not going to happen given the present circumstances.

1) He either resigns for near the vet minimum because no one else offers him anything more than that. 2) a scenario like you suggested occurs, which makes the resigning of Jack arguably unnecessary. This would allow them to offer a little more to Daniels, i.e. something closer to what we are suggesting might be offered to Jack.

If Chard Ford is to be believed, your scenario might very well happen, as there may be better PG prospects at the top of this draft than bigs. However, my point is that even in this scenario, I still find it more likely that they look to retain Jack with the intent of moving Ford. At this juncture, I can only see Daniels being a Pacer next year because there is little to no interest in him in the marketplace and he can be signed for near the veteran minimum.

Re: Is not picking up Marquis Team Option but trying to sign him as a UFA for cheaper an option?

The only reason Quis doesn't get paid in the $6m range IMO is if teams are jittery about the injury situation. Otherwise he's played much better than what I would expect from a $4m vet.

I really think that to calculate a contract for 'Quis you've got to take what he should be paid and then multiply it by 0.8. So if you think he's a $6 million dollar player, then you pay him about $4.8 million. You can't reasonably expect him to play more than 65 games.

I like 'Quis, but to keep him we're going to have to move one of these guys: Dunleavy, Murphy, Ford, Foster, Jack. That's the only way it's going to happen. I don't think any of those guys are that easy to move.

Re: Is not picking up Marquis Team Option but trying to sign him as a UFA for cheaper an option?

I would resign Daniels if we could somehow trade Dunleavy, but I'm assuming his stock is going to be fairly low. That way we could start Rush and Granger and bring Daniels off the bench. The more likely scenario is that he walks and we resign Jack, which I'm not opposed to. Although I would like to see Jack get less minutes at SG and have Rush play more.

Re: Is not picking up Marquis Team Option but trying to sign him as a UFA for cheaper an option?

My problem with not keep Quis is this - who the heck else are they going to pay to play?

If you think about all the teams trying to trade for expiring contracts, it will be hard on guys like Daniels and Jack this summer. It's not just about staying under the luxury tax, it's become about not losing money period. The owner of OKC has reportedly lost 1 billion in the stock market. This is (supposedly) why they rejected the trade with NO. I will walk to Kokomo if the Pacers do not lower their spending by somewhere around 6-8 million. Simons are stating very clearly they are losing money. Warren Buffet has lost half his net worth of about 50 billion. This is probably true for most investors. This off season will be about salaries coming down. If Dun doesn't play and ends up taking a medical. They will probably re-sign Daniels, that's the only option I see.

"He wanted to get to that money time. Time when the hardware was on the table. That's when Roger was going to show up. So all we needed to do was stay close"Darnell Hillman (Speaking of former teammate Roger Brown)

Re: Is not picking up Marquis Team Option but trying to sign him as a UFA for cheaper an option?

I predict highest offer for Quis. Rasho would go to a contender. We may not be able to sign Graham. He's had a better year than 800,000 salary. He might get 2M next year.

"He wanted to get to that money time. Time when the hardware was on the table. That's when Roger was going to show up. So all we needed to do was stay close"Darnell Hillman (Speaking of former teammate Roger Brown)